Question Regarding Understanding Scripture

[etr2013]

If a Bible verse has just one meaning can it have multiple applications?

For example the story of the Good Samaritan.

Should it just be taken as a story regarding the Good Samaritan or can other valid points be drawn from the scripture?

For example, would it be wrong to make application from Luke 10:31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side stating that the priest who was seen as being a holy godly person because he was "viewed" in this light should have stopped and helped because it was his Godly duty to do so. But rather he missed an opportunity to minister; we today make similar mistakes we miss opportunities to minister.

Is this wrong to draw this conclusion?

 

[Unix]

I would look in a good commentary. I don't have an exhaustive commentary for that particular verse.

 

[ValleyWalker2]

Just my 2 cents, but this verse is part of an answer Jesus gave when asked "who is my neighbor". I think the purpose of these verses is to show that our neighbor isn't just who we live by, or who we are friends with, our neighbor is everyone, even those that we don't like and those that hate us. I think picking out part of a verse and then trying to apply it where it wasn't meant to be applied is a disservice to the word. The bible has to be read as a complete story and not pulling out parts to be used for other purposes. It's like trying to say that the disciples owned a car together because "they were all of one accord".

 

[Look Up]

Interpretative and application principles vary in part with genre. One might reasonably find application principles in the ten commandments in fashion somewhat removed from how one would apply the narrative sections of Genesis ... versus Hebrew poetry or genealogy or apocalyptic lit. and so on.

My take on the Good Samaritan parable begins with it being Jesus' response to the weasel question, "And who is my neighbor?" ... itself given in response to affirmation of the law in Leviticus 19 (love your neighbor).

Further contextual clues I think Kenneth Bailey reasonably draws from Levitical cleanliness ritual and the inference that the mugging victim may have looked as if he was about to die--contact with a dead body being perhaps the greatest ceremonial "uncleanness," and a bit expensive to undo. If Bailey is correct, loving one's neighbor as oneself may require being inconvenienced even at some expense on behalf of the neighbor ... and possibly at the risk of social opprobrium from fellow religious devotees witnessing the uncleanness of the would-be Jewish neighbor-lover.

Closer to the surface in Luke, surely Jesus chose a Samaritan as the "good guy" precisely because he was from a culturally frowned-upon group for Jews of the day. Samaritans to Jews were the object of prejudice and animosity, so much so that Jews traveling from Jerusalem to Galilee would walk around the territory rather than the direct way through. In this case Jesus seems to be implying that His audience is less loving than its (our) group self-congratulatory posture would otherwise seem to indicate.

First and foremost is that the Samaritan alone took action, action that constituted not a small favor on behalf of the one in real and pressing need. The others did "miss an opportunity," but perhaps more to the point, when the test came, failed (as no doubt did the one who asked Jesus "And who is my neighbor") to love their neighbor as they loved themselves.

From this, application seems almost transparent. If the shoe fits, wear it. Convicting, no? But I'm not sure how to categorize application, singular or multifarious.

 

[SoldierOfSoul]

Scripture is contextual, it was written about true events, real situations, and when Jesus gave this parable it was concerning a particular event that was mentioned in context. You can apply it to your life as long as the spirit (and context) of the verse remains unchanged.

 

[Unix]

I think that the statements given by others, are also right. What Look Up said correlates with what the only commentary on this section of Lk that I have, says: © G.B. Caird (1963): Saint Luke, The Pelican New Testament Commentaries.